The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World
- Downloads：6693
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-05-23 11:53:16
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：James Burnham
- ISBN：0837156785
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Burnham’s claim was that capitalism was dead， but that it was being replaced not by socialism， but a new economic system he called 'managerialism' - rule by managers。
Written in 1941， this is the book that theorised how the world was moving into the hands of the 'managers'。 Burnham explains how Capitalism had virtually lost its control， and would be displaced not by labour， nor by socialism， but by the rule of administartors in business and in government。
This revolution， he posited， is as broad as the world and as comprehensive as human society， asking 'Why is "totalitarianism" not the issue？' 'Can civilization be destroyed？' And 'Why is the New Deal something bigger than Roosevelt can handle？'
In a volume extraordinary for its dispassionate handling of those and other fundamental questions， James Burnham explores fully the implications of the managerial revolution。
Praise for James Burnham:
'Burnham has real intellectual courage， and writes about real issues。' - George Orwell
'The stoic， detached， empirical， hard-boiled， penetrating， realist mind of James Burnham is something to behold， to admire， to emulate。' - National Review
'James Burnham was an astonishing writer。 Subtle， passionate， and irritatingly well-read。' - New Criterion
'The immense significance of Burnham’s approach is potential。 We can ignore it only at the risk of being disarmed by the future course of events。' - Irving Kristol
Written in 1941， this is the book that theorised how the world was moving into the hands of the 'managers'。 Burnham explains how Capitalism had virtually lost its control， and would be displaced not by labour， nor by socialism， but by the rule of administartors in business and in government。
This revolution， he posited， is as broad as the world and as comprehensive as human society， asking 'Why is "totalitarianism" not the issue？' 'Can civilization be destroyed？' And 'Why is the New Deal something bigger than Roosevelt can handle？'
In a volume extraordinary for its dispassionate handling of those and other fundamental questions， James Burnham explores fully the implications of the managerial revolution。
Praise for James Burnham:
'Burnham has real intellectual courage， and writes about real issues。' - George Orwell
'The stoic， detached， empirical， hard-boiled， penetrating， realist mind of James Burnham is something to behold， to admire， to emulate。' - National Review
'James Burnham was an astonishing writer。 Subtle， passionate， and irritatingly well-read。' - New Criterion
'The immense significance of Burnham’s approach is potential。 We can ignore it only at the risk of being disarmed by the future course of events。' - Irving Kristol
Reviews
Joel
，
I think it’s safe to say that Karl Marx would not have recognized the mystical lands behind the iron curtain。 I think it’s also fair to say that Adam Smith would not have recognized 1950s America。 I do however believe that James Burnham would recognize our current world order。We are trained to think of only two mechanisms of social organization。 Capitalism and Marxism。 Capitalism， which started in the late middle ages （circa 1300s？） and ended in 1914 in a tremendous explosion of violence; and Ma I think it’s safe to say that Karl Marx would not have recognized the mystical lands behind the iron curtain。 I think it’s also fair to say that Adam Smith would not have recognized 1950s America。 I do however believe that James Burnham would recognize our current world order。We are trained to think of only two mechanisms of social organization。 Capitalism and Marxism。 Capitalism， which started in the late middle ages （circa 1300s？） and ended in 1914 in a tremendous explosion of violence; and Marxism which was never more than a utopian idea。 There’s a reason for this， capitalism provided a more natural division of power， wresting from one group of oligarchs and giving to another in a process of power-destruction which led to a greater period of freedom and the accompanying prosperity。 Marxism was too easily coopted by the powerful and didn’t last the first few bursts of collective farms or worker-managed factories before it was centralized into communism， the first baby-managerial ideology （which itself only lasted about 70 years）。Which is all moot， at any rate， because both of those methods for social organization are now over。 We are in a new mechanism， what James Burnham called a “Managerial Society”。 That is what his book “Managerial Revolution” is about。 And we are now firmly in Burnham’s “Managerial Society”。 Now， I don’t really like the moniker – as you don’t。 But this book is careful to remind us that what we call things is less important than the mechanisms by which our current society is organized。 Capitalism， that method of social organization which dethroned feudalism and created a world of such tremendous prosperity and newly discovered liberty that it destroyed itself out of excess stuff， is now over。 It could not survive the consolidation of economic power that was the end result of the incredible revolution of productivity （the industrial revolution） in which the division of labor engendered a powerless class manning the assembly lines and a group of – wait for it – managers， who controlled the mechanisms of production responding to the extraordinary economies of scale。 It is， however， more the philosophical child of Plato than Aristotle。 Incidentally this is why modern managerialism fits better in the Democratic party than the Republican – Democrats are the more natural inheritors of collectivist political projects （‘New Deal’ and eugenics and Planned Parenthood and minimum wage and other attempts at social class-creation）， they fit more neatly and are more comfortable with the herd （and know best how to manage it）; whereas republicans – the offspring of Aristotle – have a more libertarian “leave me the hell alone” strain to them。 But it should be mentioned that neither the 。1% nor the 9。9% are necessarily party-affiliated。 It is about class， not party and certainly not about ideology。 Ideology is only deployed as a useful weapon by individuals vying against their competitors to join the 9。9% （or to hold their perch， at all costs there）。A few years ago I wrote a piece called “What is going on？” In this piece， I identified much of the current political project of the ‘managers’ as they seek to build permanent power for their class。 However， I erred in that I also used the knee-jerk vocabulary which we are accustomed to hurling at each other: “socialism” and “communism” and “fascism” and other isms which are of course meaningless。 And in that， I argued from one side of the ideological food-fight （the one I am most sympathetic to） – in doing so I lost the ability to more fully articulate not what I feel about what is going on， but what is actually going on。 I am fully willing to remedy that， but probably not here。 It would require some additional work。 The point is， the “Managerial Society” is now a fait accompli。So what is the “Managerial Society”？ It is， to put it simply， the New Aristocracy so eloquently outlined by Matthew Stewart。 Specifically （and this is where Burnham， writing almost 100 years ago， gets some things wrong）， the current “Managerial Society” is a plutarchy controlled by – as Stewart says – the 。1%。 They control the means of production and the vast portions of planetary wealth。 They have realized that to preserve their exalted positions they must control the state; coercive weaponry of power is what all monarchs of the world know they must possess， and the plutocracy is no different。 In this， Burnham is also wrong – he identified the state takeover of the means of production as the beginning of managerialism。 But that is his own Marxist underpinnings （he was a Trotskyist in the 30s before abandoning it to join William Buckley， like so many did in the heady days of ideology）; the reality is that the Plutocracy and their massive productive machinery took over the state。 But， now that they have it， they have no interest whatsoever in managing their sprawling empires。 They are too busy at their private islands or in congress with each other – and you’ve probably never heard of them。 They are not politicians， or actors， or sports figures。 Those figures come from the “Managerial Society”， either as direct managers or the jesters meant to pave the way for the aristocracy’s permanent power by mining the debate by pulling at the heart-strings of their foot-soldiers on their Gramscian “march through the institutions”。The “New Aristocracy”， the “Managerial Elite” are those 9。9% who control the productive capacity of the world; a marriage of the state and its mechanized managerial agenda and the ‘private sector’ which is no longer private but at the command of the “Managerial Aristocrats” through regulation and the revolving door exchange of public/private position。 They have been called the “deep state” — too soon？So who is everybody else？ They are， of course， the underclass。 The losers。 BLM or MAGA – not to put too fine a point on it。 Those foot soldiers who the “aristocrats” battling each other for control of the state and its privileges and power send to fight （and sometimes die） on the back streets of downtown Seattle or to seize our most hallowed halls in rage and impotence。 “Nor will the bulk of those who have done， and will do， the fighting in the struggle be recruited from the ranks of the managers themselves; most of the fighters will be workers and youths who will doubtless， many of them， believe that they are fighting for ends of their own。” If they are on the MAGA side they are fighting globalism and if they are on the BLM side they are fighting for diversity; words they have been given by the managers which in no way represent what they will achieve should they ‘win’; for the “New Aristocracy” has been working hard to “raise the ladders as they ascend” – as economist Angus Deaton has said。 Staying true to James Burnham’s instructions， none of this is a value statement。 Capitalism opened the door （through the allure of permanent economic growth） to tremendous inequality and also the ability of the powerful to live well beyond their means， creating environmental degradation that we will be living with for generations。 Marxism was never workable， and was discarded almost immediately by those who saw a path to permanent power and became the proto-managerial society until it too fell; for totalitarian managerialism does not have the feedback loops which allowed it to morph and adjust to the winds of popular discontent， natural disaster or scarcity and thereby save itself from destruction。 The same is true for Nazi German “Managerialism”， which was of the same shade as the Soviet variety and perished for the same reasons。 American “New Deal” managerialism has been longer lasting， because there have been – at least so far- feedback loops which allow citizens to express discontent， to vie for （increasingly complicated） access to the 9。9% and to punish the egregious Aristocrats （and even occasionally a Plutocrat or two）， thereby preserving a sense of power where none exists in actual fact。 Managerialism is here to stay， it is the way our society is controlled。 The incentive structure， the economic structure， the class structure have imposed themselves – and advancement will increasingly follow proscripted methods， outlined perhaps by Dominic Green in his enlightening article “Oligarchy in America”。 For those who want to win， they will follow the recipes。 In America’s “Managerial Society”， there will be no other way to succeed。 。。。more
Eric Sexton
，
Directionally correct。 Incorrect on some details。 You must understand this book to understand the modern world。 It's a critical additional to your "filter" on reality。 Directionally correct。 Incorrect on some details。 You must understand this book to understand the modern world。 It's a critical additional to your "filter" on reality。 。。。more
Andrew Quinn
，
Interesting A politically technical subject covered with great clarity。 Hard to believe it was written as long ago as 1940。 Well worth a read。
Edward Welsch
，
This is book contains James Burnham's vastly influential， if somewhat overlooked today， 1941 book on his theory of the managerial revolution， in which he posited that the coming transition in society is not a socialistic revolution， but the coming of "managerialism" to replace capitalism。 I had the great privilege to discuss this book in the winter of 2020 on the Mises Institute's books podcast: https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=LwHkX。。。。 This is book contains James Burnham's vastly influential， if somewhat overlooked today， 1941 book on his theory of the managerial revolution， in which he posited that the coming transition in society is not a socialistic revolution， but the coming of "managerialism" to replace capitalism。 I had the great privilege to discuss this book in the winter of 2020 on the Mises Institute's books podcast: https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=LwHkX。。。。 。。。more
Paul
，
wonderfully readable speculation on the future of modern political economy written at the outbreak of WWII。 the timing makes it all the more fascinating as a historical artifact。 Burnham's scathing critique of both capitalism and socialism is refreshing。 his dread of the managerial age is prescient。 much to think about。。。 wonderfully readable speculation on the future of modern political economy written at the outbreak of WWII。 the timing makes it all the more fascinating as a historical artifact。 Burnham's scathing critique of both capitalism and socialism is refreshing。 his dread of the managerial age is prescient。 much to think about。。。 。。。more
Steve
，
The Managerial Revolution is a helpful book in several respects。 1。 It aids in the understanding of Burnham's subsequent work。 He wrote it during his personal break with Trotskyist Communism when he concluded dialectical materialism was an insufficient theoretical lens to explain world social and economic developments。 Some appear to read this as a conservative diatribe， but Burnham maintains a sort of materialism and pretension toward science from his recent Marxist past。 One he sheds some in h The Managerial Revolution is a helpful book in several respects。 1。 It aids in the understanding of Burnham's subsequent work。 He wrote it during his personal break with Trotskyist Communism when he concluded dialectical materialism was an insufficient theoretical lens to explain world social and economic developments。 Some appear to read this as a conservative diatribe， but Burnham maintains a sort of materialism and pretension toward science from his recent Marxist past。 One he sheds some in his subsequent writing。 On that point， his later books and essays were comparatively devoid of interest in economic theory。 I suspect this is because he considered the Managerial Revolution inevitable and thought it best to strike Leviathan at where its leaders were most deficient and vulnerable- virtue and culture （and thereby return to a defense of Classical Liberalism from another， helpful direction）。 I would not have come to this conclusion without reading this book。 2。 In the process of the scales being lifted from his eyes， Burnham left the world with an enduring observation that has been refined some by other thinkers since its publication。 As another reviewer put it， the theory of Managerial Revolution is far from perfect in its explanatory power， but the general track of things is correct。 He offers a trilemma of sorts in the final chapter that really gets to the nub of things- which of the following seems more likely and （now） historically verifiable: （1） A sustained capitalism？ （2） The replacement of capitalism with socialism？ （3） The replacement of capitalism with a managerial apparatus？ Considering this is a profitable thought exercise。 3。 It was a highly influential book upon its publication and so helps one understand the spirit of the times。 George Orwell was a great admirer of Burnham's and that influence will be made very clear to anybody who has read both The Managerial Revolution and 1984。My personal recommendation is to read Burnham's major books in reverse。 Start with Suicide of the West and work your way back。 It's his most essential read and refinement of his best insights are found throughout。 。。。more
Krishna Avendaño
，
La futurología o el mal congénito de las ciencias sociales， en este caso la filosofía política。 No es un riesgo menor pergeñar semejantes libros: devenir profeta o engrosar la lista de bufones que creyeron ver， con sus limitados ojos humanos， los hilos de la historia。
Bill Berg
，
https://beingbeliefbehavior。blogspot。。。。the lukewarm review is because I believe the set of people that will find this book useful is quite small -- but if you have a fairly strong desire to get a bit deeper into the "path" or "random walk" of history， you will find it at least interesting。 https://beingbeliefbehavior。blogspot。。。。the lukewarm review is because I believe the set of people that will find this book useful is quite small -- but if you have a fairly strong desire to get a bit deeper into the "path" or "random walk" of history， you will find it at least interesting。 。。。more
Kerem
，
Overall 4。5 stars。This is rather an interesting thought experiment， indicating a potential third way for the future coming， despite the then prevailing capitalism and socialism。 Written in the depressing early years of the second world war， Burnham observes a growing managerial elite slowly taking over the society in a similar fashion to how capitalists took over from the feudal lords。 Although on the surface the book's forecasts did not realize and we're living in a neoliberal world， there is p Overall 4。5 stars。This is rather an interesting thought experiment， indicating a potential third way for the future coming， despite the then prevailing capitalism and socialism。 Written in the depressing early years of the second world war， Burnham observes a growing managerial elite slowly taking over the society in a similar fashion to how capitalists took over from the feudal lords。 Although on the surface the book's forecasts did not realize and we're living in a neoliberal world， there is plenty food for thought in it。Burnham's expectation of three superstates， especially a European superstate but also an Asian one， has indeed realized by now （this will also ring a bell to anyone who read 1984。） Did the managers take control over？ Not really， as the rich got super rich and have much more control now。 But then there's the interesting point that all three superstates have more government control than before， especially European one run by a big machine of bureaucracy （Burnham's definition of managers aren't limited to industry but also includes government and bureaucracy） and certainly Chinese one doesn't need even further elaboration。Despite its failings in prediction， this will provide you a number of perspectives and make you think， especially in the "interesting times" we're going through just now。 。。。more
Darcy
，
Managerialism is the soul-destroying 'ism' which haunts our daily lives。 One can see why Orwell was so fascinated with Burnham's work and thinking。 Managerialism is the soul-destroying 'ism' which haunts our daily lives。 One can see why Orwell was so fascinated with Burnham's work and thinking。 。。。more
quoms
，
James Burnham is not one of the great prognosticators of the 20th century， and nearly everything he writes in this book is wrong， but he's wrong in that grand tradition of bloviating conservative intellectuals where they really swing for the fences and it's all very engaging and thought-provoking even as it's fundamentally misdirected。 Burnham's wit is sharp， his prose is tight， and you can tell he's aiming at some very interesting ideas even as he misses most of them。 It's the kind of writing t James Burnham is not one of the great prognosticators of the 20th century， and nearly everything he writes in this book is wrong， but he's wrong in that grand tradition of bloviating conservative intellectuals where they really swing for the fences and it's all very engaging and thought-provoking even as it's fundamentally misdirected。 Burnham's wit is sharp， his prose is tight， and you can tell he's aiming at some very interesting ideas even as he misses most of them。 It's the kind of writing that really gets your brain cranking in response， which I may enjoy even more than reading very well-written and well-considered pieces with which I totally agree。 Watching people say foolish things with panache is the reason I read the National Review （which Burnham， appropriately enough， helped found）。The intellectual half-life of this book has been long and fascinating， and could probably occupy its own book or at least an article。 The "managerial revolution" as a concept has lodged itself in the cultural consciousness， yet with a meaning nearly the opposite of what Burnham intended。 And though George Orwell wrote a scathing review of it on its release （both his review and Paul Sweezy's are very much worth reading in their own right）， The Managerial Revolution provided a significant source of inspiration for Nineteen Eighty-Four， the geopolitics of which are all lifted directly from this book。Time （and especially the 1970s） may not have been kind to Burnham's specific predictions， but overall this still packs the same wallop it did in 1942。 Get your hands on a first edition if you can， because he says completely insane things about the Nazis and who knows whether that may have been removed later。 Definitely recommended。 。。。more
Vagabond of Letters， DLitt
，
8/10。 A minor modern classic。 Not entirely accurate in its prognostications， but not as wrong as it seems on the surface。 Burnham had a problem with being too bound to the zeitgeist to understand historical developments in perspective - likewise in 'Suicide of the West' - but he presents here fragmented components of a framework helpful for understanding the world as it developed （which in fact took on many criteria of the managerial society， but with capitalism more tenacious than predicted） an 8/10。 A minor modern classic。 Not entirely accurate in its prognostications， but not as wrong as it seems on the surface。 Burnham had a problem with being too bound to the zeitgeist to understand historical developments in perspective - likewise in 'Suicide of the West' - but he presents here fragmented components of a framework helpful for understanding the world as it developed （which in fact took on many criteria of the managerial society， but with capitalism more tenacious than predicted） and for a historically-important and contemporary vision of when the rule of law gave way to administrative rulemaking （see Hamburger， 'Is Administrative Law Lawful？'） and when the meanings of 'liberal' and 'progressive' began their continuing Marxist turn， as the Left routed us on the semantic field （pun intended）。Think of how and why Burnham's predictions didn't come to pass - and think of how they may have come to pass in a mutated form - and this book will provide great （though not endless） food for thought and insight in to the Gramscian long march through the institutions， and technocrats more generally。Later works build upon Burnham， such as Sam Francis， 'Leviathan and its Enemies'， which I look forward to reading。 。。。more
Xenophon Hendrix
，
The Managerial Revolution was written in 1940 and published in the spring of 1941， before the United States entered World War Two as a combatant and Hitler betrayed Stalin with Operation Barbarossa。 The memory of the Great Depression was still sharp in James Burnham's mind。 He predicts that the days of capitalism are numbered， and he believes that socialism， in the sense of a classless， democratic society， is impossible。 In the book he puts forth the hypothesis that capitalist society is in the The Managerial Revolution was written in 1940 and published in the spring of 1941， before the United States entered World War Two as a combatant and Hitler betrayed Stalin with Operation Barbarossa。 The memory of the Great Depression was still sharp in James Burnham's mind。 He predicts that the days of capitalism are numbered， and he believes that socialism， in the sense of a classless， democratic society， is impossible。 In the book he puts forth the hypothesis that capitalist society is in the process of being replaced by "managerial society，" the rule of a managerial class。As you probably know， this didn't happen in the First World。 Whereas it's true that the government now controls much more of society than it formerly has， capitalism is still with us to a large extent。 Furthermore， Burnham makes a lot of other predictions in this book that also didn't come true。Why， then， should one bother to read it？ Well， Burnham wasn't an idiot。 He had an orderly， logical， well informed mind。 In this book he gives rational reasons for the predictions he makes。 If the reader asks himself while he reads why Burnham's predictions failed， he will no doubt find the experience enlightening。 。。。more
Michael Malice
，
horribly outdated and utterly wrong in all its predictions
sologdin
，
ex-trot turned rightwinger lifts some trot ideas， such as 'bureaucratic collectivism，' gives them a far right twerk， and publishes as original research。 yawn。 basic thesis is that the world is a-headin' for the end of cappyism OH NOS--toward something that looks like NSDAP/USSR/FDR （see what he did there？）。 dullness for dullards。thing is， everyone has management。 it's not inconsistent with socialist principles at all to be a manager， as management of property is a different thing than ownership ex-trot turned rightwinger lifts some trot ideas， such as 'bureaucratic collectivism，' gives them a far right twerk， and publishes as original research。 yawn。 basic thesis is that the world is a-headin' for the end of cappyism OH NOS--toward something that looks like NSDAP/USSR/FDR （see what he did there？）。 dullness for dullards。thing is， everyone has management。 it's not inconsistent with socialist principles at all to be a manager， as management of property is a different thing than ownership or possession of property。 management is a job， after all， and it can be perfectly proletarian。 dude thinks that the managers have taken over and are the new ruling class。 whatever。 as if the manager making $200，000 per annum while working 90-hour weeks has anything on the owner of the company who 'earns' $4M on no work per week。 FFS。 。。。more
Edward Waverley
，
"The first effect of limited liability was the progressive separation of ownership from responsibility， of management from property。 Burnham called it the 'managerial revolution，' without analyzing its origins in limited liability。" - Rousas John Rushdoony， The Politics of Guilt and Pity， 1970 "The first effect of limited liability was the progressive separation of ownership from responsibility， of management from property。 Burnham called it the 'managerial revolution，' without analyzing its origins in limited liability。" - Rousas John Rushdoony， The Politics of Guilt and Pity， 1970 。。。more
Miquixote
，
Burnham argued that capitalism was a temporary form of organization currently being transformed into some non-socialist future form of society。Burnham argued correctly that capitalism could not be regarded as an immutable and permanent form。 In Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire， mass unemployment was "a symptom that a given type of social organization is just about finished。" The worldwide mass unemployment of the depression era was， for Burnham， indicative that capitalism was itself "not goin Burnham argued that capitalism was a temporary form of organization currently being transformed into some non-socialist future form of society。Burnham argued correctly that capitalism could not be regarded as an immutable and permanent form。 In Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire， mass unemployment was "a symptom that a given type of social organization is just about finished。" The worldwide mass unemployment of the depression era was， for Burnham， indicative that capitalism was itself "not going to continue much longer。"He was wrong that capitalism was finished， underrated its capacity to remake itself。。。but he was absolutely correct that historic capitalism could not continue down the same road， and it has certainly mutated。。。。into something we now call neo-liberal capitalism。Burnham looked around the world for indications of the new form of society which was emerging to replace historic capitalism and saw certain commonalities between the economic formations of Nazi Germany， Stalinist Russia， and America under Franklin D。 Roosevelt and his "New Deal。" Authoritarianism in all its forms as anarchists would say。 Of course Burnham was not anarchist， far from it。 Burnham argued that over a comparatively short period， which he dated from the first world war， a new society had emerged in which a "social group or class" which Burnham called "managers" had engaged in a "drive for social dominance， for power and privilege， for the position of ruling class。" As Michael Albert （ie。 Parecon） would say 'the coordinator class' （from a completely opposite political direction）。Burnham was arguing that whether ownership was corporate and private or statist and governmental， the essential demarcation between the ruling elite （executives and managers on the one hand， bureaucrats and functionaries on the other） and the mass of society was not ownership so much as it was control of the means of production。Burnham's arguments stemmed partly from the idea of bureaucratic collectivism first introduced to Trotskyism by Yvan Craipeau， but in Burnham's case from a conservative Machiavellian rather than a Marxist viewpoint。 。。。more
Steven Peterson
，